Talk:Urolagnia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Negative Image

If there are no objections, I'm going to change the quotes from saying "so and so admitted to doing such and such." Admission implies wrong doing or embarassment, niether of which are the case here. This should also help clear up some of the inherent negativity of the article. 68.158.106.192 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Can we have some pictures please? --131.111.8.96 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures of watersports can be found easily enough on Google and Fleshbot that it is not necessary to put them as part of an article on Wikipedia, since they would not further the informational value of the article more than an iota.

NO, absolutely not. This would be direct violation of every single website that exists with rules and guidelines for pictures. As a sexual pleasures, it would be a picture that would be available to the public of all ages, be used unwisely, may involve protestors, and perhaps create a mess of problems. Colonel Marksman 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say no to pictures of some of the more disparaging acts, however, if something could be found that was related.. 68.158.106.192 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

: Wouldn't really add to the article.

There is a video used as a cite for Rockbitch in the Notables Section. Is this different then a picture used for demonstration purposes? 02:18, 7 July 2006 (FHU)

[edit] Allergy

I removed this, substituting a reference to "skin rashes":

There may also be secondary effects, such as an allergic reaction in the skin of individuals sensitive to urine.

IMO, anyone allergic to urine has a very serious condition not particularly relevant to urolagnia: internal exposure is unavoidable except by (i suppose) "kidney" dialysis! Allergy means an immune reaction. Someone might be allergic to certain people's urine, bcz of substances in it that are not inherant to urine. More likely, what is referred to here is IMO some kind of chemical damage to the skin, similar to that produced by bleach or "harsh" detergents; those who are described as "allergic" may heal such damaged skin more slowly than others, or may just have had a heavier recent exposure.

I could be mistaken, but if so, IMO it's worth documenting. --Jerzy(t) 04:37, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Issues

Rereading more carefully, i have removed to here the entire existing health discussion, namely

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I am not qualified to write a discussion this detailed, but i know enough to know this one ignores some facts and IMO is therefore suspect as a whole, in an area where misinformation is dangerous and where there is personal motivation for exaggerating safety. I have substituted a much more cautious statement. I assume a less cautious and more useful one can be prepared, but first document on this talk page any stronger statements of safety. --Jerzy(t) 14:24, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Removed from article:

Urine is inherantly toxic, as suggested by the evolution of the body's elaborate mechanisms for concentrating and excreting it. Therefore it is false to make blanket statements that absence of infection ensures harmless ingestion; ingestion by a person with reduced kidney function would multiply danger. Various urolagnic activities may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

Unlinke Jerzy, I am qualified to discuss this matter, having been a trained and practiced sexuality educator for the past five years.

Although urine contins body wastes, it is not toxic if ingested. The body's filtration system will send the wastes back to the kidneys for removal. One can ingest a toxic dose of concentrated urine or urea, just as one can ingest a toxic dose of caffeine or juice or anything else that is relatively harmless in moderate amounts. - UtherSRG 14:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty convincing, as long as you'll also confirm that people kidney disease are either to sick to want to participate to a sufficient extent to be harmed, or sure to have been warned by their doctors.
I would guess this talk page won't end up growing to where it needs archiving, but i would hope that if it does get archived, at least a summary of this discussion will be kept on the talk page itself. I'm making a section out of it, to facilitate that. --Jerzy(t) 23:00, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Yes, in fact, UREA is threapeutic for some forms of cancer.. and there is a rich, long, asian tradition of urine ingestion daily to restore health. [this is pretty significant.] Can someone look this up and add?

[edit] Dispelling jokes and myths

"Male porcupines use urine to soften the females' quills before mating." And thus, all the jokes about procupines mating are dispelled.




--Why is the contents list almost at the bottom of the page? Bob the Pirate 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. It's at the top.


[edit] Hepatitis

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I think it should be made more clear that one can get STDs, like hepatitis, from urine (this is true no?). Some people might take the part about it generally being considered harmless taken together with "a small risk exists if a disease is present" to mean that IF a person has an STD, like hepatitis, then it is only a small risk of acquiring it--which I don't think is true, hepatitis is usually transmited through urine and feces if I'm not mistaken. --Brentt 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important distinction. The risk in general might be small, but if the partner is known to have a particular disease, then the risk might be significant. Eg, normally the risk of getting struck by lightning is low, but the risk is quite high if you insist on flying a kite during a thunder storm. More information is needed. 58.107.87.183 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Project Scrapped

I wanted to split the main paragraph into subsections based on types of practices. Each section would give in detail the how and “why” of this practice. I felt that the sections were not ready to go into the main article and asked for help. Two problems arose. The main one is as the article states there is minimal scientific research into this topic. I drew tentative conclusions based on eight years of reading internet message boards etc. Although I clearly stated what I was doing it is not the policy Wikipidia to bridge this knowledge gap due to the ban on Original Research. The other problem was due to the nature of the topic the normal vetting process that might have made the article acceptable did not take place. 13:25, 11 March 2006 (FHU)

What 'normal vetting process' is that? As one who did read and comment on your suggestions, I just feel that (the OR aspect aside) it's just too easy to fall into the trap of losing objectivity in the subject and ending up adding material that appears intended to titillate rather than inform. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Doubtful, very doubtful. There are specific differences in these here, and ought to have their own subsections. In fact, I find it very important that they be separated.

Well... maybe not subsections, but at least a clear distinction. It looks like we're taking everything and piling it all up into one thing, and it's main focus appears to be the drinking of urine. This should not be.

MOST Urolagnia fantasies do not include the drinking of urine at all, and is in fact not very popular. Writers of this article are turning it into something bigger than what it really is.

"Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else wet their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed." -- this should strictly be the other way around. The article fails to include the tickling part of things, undressing while wetting, and does not emphasize that females are usually the ones doing the wetting and the guys looking on or urinating on them.

Urinating while completely nude is amongst the top of popularity. On a lower and tasteful scale along with that comes female urination in undergarments, a top favorite, and the lesser favorite, purposeful accidents while fully clothed (which includes the desperation. In fact, while in desperation, some refer to it as a dance.

You don't really need or require more research. You have an addict right here. Colonel Marksman 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my basic points which were that my words were not ready to go into the main article for several reasons. While the long time observations of two addicts have some value it is not equivalent to a real scientific study. And the basics of should there be sections or subsections and what should be in them have not were not vetted enough. Since you have unscrapped the project remember my subsections remain in the archives. My purpose from the beginning was to improve the article so I am always willing to help. 20:00, 2 April 2006 (FHU)
  • Ok, ok, ok, I see what you are saying, but I am basing a lot of this off of the great number of websites available. If you want a statistical study of most or all of these sites, you will find most of what I say pretty accurate. You can also look at stories, videos, pics, etc. on this stuff. It obviously wouldn't be a specific scientific study, but you could still get in some statistics. Colonel Marksman 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I could do that but that would directly violate the Wikipedia policy against Original Research. A case could be made that due the lack of scientific research there should be an exception to the rule here. I felt that way for awhile but changed my mind. Remember there are links to websites in the article. 2:08, 5 April 2006 (FHU)

[edit] Main section too negative

The article implies that for most people who have this fetish their sex lives are messes up due to this fetish and therefore they are in need of deprogramming. In 2006 is deprogramming recommended for all who practice this? For only those whom it causes problems for? Or anybody?. 11:58 14 March 2006 (FHU)

I reverted the additions that make these points. They are POV, inaccurate and smack of a personal perspective or original research. Besides, we know what a 'fetish' is, so it's not necessary to spell it out again. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It might not have been necessary to take the whole deprogramming thing out I am sure people become addicted to Urolagnia as people become addicted to anything else. The fact that the article said attempts at deprogramming have been unsuccessful implies that the person who put it there had a legitimate reason to do so. My objection was more point of view and the fact that it needed more detail or a citation or so (If deprogramming is used or recommended in 2006) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (FHU)
Changed "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked pants or body parts [thighs,knees,etc.] that usually become contaminated by urine when a person wets himself" to "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked clothes or body parts". The word "contaminated" is a POV word. 20:12, 2 April 2006 (FHU)


I am a real enthusiast, & in my experience for most folks drinking it is the ultimate pleasure.

[edit] R. Kelly

Should R. Kelly be added to this page? Katana3333 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I already removed an earlier attempt to add him here. While this might be linked from there, it's not notable enough to be added here. Graham 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notables Section

What is the R. Kelly reference about? 04:14, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

The Wikipedia Page on Chuck Berry shows this

In 1990, Berry was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the ladies' bathrooms at two of his St. Louis restaurants. A class action settlement was eventually reached with 59 women on the complaint; Berry's biographer Bruce Pegg estimated that it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees. A Miami distributor is currently marketing video footage purporting to show Berry urinating on a young woman in a bathtub. Although the voice heard sounds similar Berry's face is never visible on the tape making his positive identification impossible.[1]

I am not sure if he belongs in this section or not. I am leaning against putting him in based on this. If I was forced to bet my house on it I would bet that he is an urophile. The fact that he did settle while making him look very guilty is not proof that he is quilty. And even if there is solid evidence he put the camera in the bathroom the motive might have been to see nudity not urination. 04:26, 8 May 2006 (FHU)


This whole section is questionable. For instance, there's no evidence that Shirley Manson is actually a urophile - her quotation is probably not meant literally or seriously, and song lyrics are evidence of nothing. Annie Sprinkle, OK, seemingly no problem there - but then it might just be her act. She includes many other things in her act such as using a speculum to show her cervix, which has nothing to do with this. My view is that where someone has come right out and said that this is their thing, then perhaps the article on that person might link back here, but I really don't see how a list of people here is useful in any real way - it's just sub-Sunday paper type titillation for the feeble minded. Graham 09:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles have a section similar to this. The title name might have to be changed. A new title might be “Notable Urolgnia Proponents” but that would exclude somebody saying “I am into it but to each his own”. So eventually this might be divided into subsections. But it has to start somewhere and I feel that the nature of the topic should not exclude this section or should cause this article to be judged by a higher standard then that of others dealing with a less salacious topic. The decision to put in or leave things out should not be based on what we think the reader’s intent is.

As far as Shirley Manson quote goes yes it is possible she said it as a joke or to sell records. Every quote cited in the history of Wikipedea has that type of question surrounding it. I doubt you would ever get an interview that goes like this. “Are you into Urolagnia?”. “Yes my preference is for the golden shower variation” . So you have to go by the old but flawed what a reasonable person would think. She says it in an article titled “Sex 2000 “ and not only does she say it but she puts a context of being into bodily fluids in general. Then she puts in a song lyric. Together it seems pretty reasonable to conclude she is a urophile. 13:45, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

Changed this section to stub status. 15:34, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

Drawing such conclusions from such flimsy evidence would appear to contradict WP:OR. Graham 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then I guess I am really stupid because short of following the women over a three year period I have no idea what it would take to prove a she is a urophile. 01:47, 10 May 2006 (FHU)


Put citation needed for both Jim Norton and Rockbitch. There is nothing in the Jim Norton description that has anything to do with urolagnia. The Rockbitch description claims urination as part of their act but gives no proof. Quick research finds that a “golden condom” is thrown out to members of the audience. The members that catch the condoms get sex backstage. The “gold” in the condom may be urine but may also be the sex backstage. 02:12, 10 May 2006 (FHU)

Dunno anything about Jim Norton, but in adding Rockbitch I'm not referring to the golden condom. Many of their past shows have included members of the band urinating directly on the audience. They may still do this. I'll see if I can track down a citation. Graham 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well that wasn't hard. The first link I googled returned this: [2]. You have to read down a bit. Graham 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's another, this time a video clip. [3]. Need I go on? Graham 09:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Good find 00:01 22 May 2006 (FHU)

[edit] Some common variations of Urolagnia Section

This section at this time is Original Research. The issues relevant to this are discussed above in "expansion project scrapped". I understand that this is a low traffic site and that is why instead of deleting the section I put a citation needed statement and have left the section in for a month or two. But at some point soon citations should be put in or a convincing argument needs to be made as to why this section should not be deleted 03:56, 11 June 2006 (FHU)

Not sure how this is OR. Any perfunctory look at a porn site or browse though erotica will see significant subcultures related to all these themes. Are you arguing that these things exist or??Bridesmill 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on reading those sites since 1997 and by being a regular poster on the Message board of the clothing wetting site linked in the article from 2000-2003 when it was a more general Urolagnia board I basically agree that what is stated that section is correct. What is needed are citations where a reputable authority says they are true. Citing individual postings are not enough. Writing that section based on my reading and participation on those boards is the definition of Original Research which is the major no no in Wikipedia. If a reputable sexologist or journalist does the research and I cite it that is fine. To my personal regret this has rarely if at all been done. But as I stated in the other section this is not the fault of Wikipedia. 02:15, 16 June 2006 (FHU)

Not sure if the OR issue applies here; OR would imply sorting through individual posts or doing investigative reseaarch; in this case, anyone could do a simple google and find this. I'll dig for some cites, but what is the line between common knowledge and OR? (Believe it or not, on another page, someone was insisting on a cite for the statement "no one is gramatically singular"...)Bridesmill 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a grey area. The Wikipedia article on original research does not mention message boards. The closest mention would be “records of field observations” which could be interpreted as similar to a message board post. What it does say is specifically in the “Why Original research is excluded” section is that editors “personal analysis or interpretation of published material” is specifically excluded. I believe this accurately describes how this section is currently written. As far as common knowlege I would agree that the voyeurism aspect is fairly well known due to news reports but I doubt the desperation aspect is common knowlege. 02:36, 19 June 2006 (FHU)


Sorry but this section is still Original Research and citations are still needed. I do not want an edit war so if you take the citations needed thing out again I will not put it back in. Which would be a shame because this "pussing" thing is new to me and I would be very interested in reading more about it. 03:53, 11 July 2006 (FHU)

[edit] Urolagnia

I am about to marry a gentleman who has confided to me that he has practiced urolagnia -- wetting his clothing -- for many years. He does not know why he started it or continues to do so and has said he wants to stop. I believe he wants to stop. Does anyone know of someone who was able to discontinue this practice successfully and what method was used? Thank you for any insight into this issue. Hortens 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and thus the purpose here is to give the basic facts as to what urolagnia is. Another words this is not the proper place to have this question answered. However on the bottom of the article there is a section called “External Links”. Many of those links will take to websites where that question is an important topic of discussion. Some of those links will take you to message boards where many members will be glad to discuss your specific case. 03:11, 14 August 2006 (FHU)

[edit] Rockbitch

I had to take the link out to the video I used as a cite because it no longer worked. The Google lookups I did only produced message board references and not an article or review describing the on stage golden showers that were part of their act 69.114.117.103 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

[edit] Robter Cormier book taken out

The entry for Robter Cormier book has been deleted. Just because as in this case a character in a book wets himself or even a character is into urolagnia does not necessarily mean the author is a urolagniac. Stephen King has been a subject of speculation in the urolagnia community for years but no proof has emerged of his predisposition so no entry. The Borat entry was taken out for the same reason. Discussion of should there be a section devoted to depictions of urolagnia in the arts is a topic for another thread. 69.114.117.103 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

[edit] Is it Urolagnia or Urolgnia?

The article spells it the former way Microsoft Word suggests a correction towered the latter and Firefox 2.0 likes none of the spellings. 69.114.117.103 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

[edit] Bye Bye Pussing

So the Pussing section gets deleted because because of a July discussion claiming the practice is not notable and the cite is not reliable yet all the other practices remain without any cite at all. Just goes to show there are many things in life I will never understand 69.114.117.103 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

[edit] The Hidden Cameras taken out of notables section

According to the cite they flatly deny the song is about this topic. "People have a tendency to refer to the song 'Golden Streams' as 'Golden Showers,' but that's not what it's called. And it tells me what they're thinking. But the song isn't really about anything sexual - it's about building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss.". As said above mere suspicion the person is into this is not enough 69.114.117.103 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Oh so it's about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss."? Oh Right. We all recognize that aspiration don't we? Don't you think that the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics?[4] Paul B 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree based on the pattern you described one might deduce that he is a raving urophiliac that feels the need to deny it. One can also deduce that he views urine as normal part of life without any sexual connotations that he is having a bit of fun with. Another interpretation is that since most view urine as waste he wrote a song about "building an architectural device to get to heaven using frozen piss" as a statement of irony. Wikipedia is not here to try to read between the lines. Doing that is Original Research and Original Research is the biggest no no here. Debating which celebrity is giving a "wink" to a knowing audience the a fun thing that is best done on the message boards listed in the article. The facts are the man flatly denied any sexual connotation so he should be deleted 69.114.117.103 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
But there was no "original research". The section is fully footnoted and gives all points of view, including the heavenly-tower-of-piss explanation. That's the antithesis of OR as defined by Wikipedia. BTW, "recognise" is the correct spelling of the word in British English. Paul B 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
True everything is cited and the denial is listed.The original research is done by you in deducing that this band is a "Notable urophiliac" based on "the comment in this interview might be just a little bit satirical given the well-known sexual content of his lyrics".Truth be told I agree with you in that I THINK he is a urophiliac. A person does not belong on the list based on our THEORY. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
There is no ban on "original research" on Talk pages! It is not our theory, but a widespread interpretation of the song. There is a case for renaming the section "notable and claimed urophiliacs" or something similar. After all Rembrandt is rather unlikely to have been one in reality (though that's only included here as Ellis's speculation). Paul B 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Putting in any type of claim or interpretation is dicey for this format.It will open a hornets nest as to what is a "credible claim"(In this case the most credible person is denying it). That is why most Wikipedia articles deal with proven facts. There are exceptions to the rule the 9/11 conspiracy theories article jumps to mind but some celebrity's proclivity for urolagnia is not of the social and political import as the 9/11 stuff. 69.114.117.103 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
No that's not the case with works of art, literature etc. Giving accounts of interpretations is perfectly normative. It's precisely what encyclopedias do - for example the discussion of possible motives for Iago. Paul B 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
While encyclopedias may give accounts of interpretations it is not the usual policy to give an interpretation that the artist has flatly denied. But you did not do what the person who wrote the the "Othello" article did "lago also plays an undeniably important role. For one, he speaks more lines than Othello. It is also Iago who manipulates all other characters at his will, trapping them in an intricate net of lies. A. C. Bradley—and more recently Harold Bloom—have been major advocates of this interpretation.Other critics, most notably in the later twentieth century (after F. R. Leavis), have focused on Othello." 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
Another idea and this is stretching it would be to write a line at the beginning of this section or a separate section devoted to depiction of urolagnia in the arts that looks like this "While it has become a popular pastime in the urolagnia community to speculate which celebrity has this proclivity (message board cite),(message board cite) this section only lists people who have confirmed their proclivity" or "have depictions that meet the strict definition of urolagnia as part of their artistic expression". With this unless you have a question I for now end my part in this discussion. I do not think you or me can add anything new at this point. Hopefully somebody else jumps in with a fresh perspective or suggestion at which point I might jump back in. I have a life and am not going spend the rest of it deleting the section it so you can put it right back in. I do hope you reconsider the validity of this section. 69.114.117.103 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
By the way, I did not write or add this section. I merely formatted it after it was added by Summerbell. I like it because it is well written and constructed. I am not sure what point you are making about the Iago page. It is unreasonable to expect that major literaary critics can be cited commenting on the lyrics in this case. Paul B 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the Othello page has a reputable cite for it's interpretation and that this page has none. While there won't be literary critic confirming this since the interviewer is asking this question the interviewer has to be getting that interpretation from somewhere. Without this cite I am not unreasonable in assuming that interpretation is from Summerbell's original research?. If I live to be 85 years old and am still in a reasonable state of mind and I am reading this rhis article with this particular notable I will still not get what part of "Its not sexual" people do not understand 69.114.117.103 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)
You answer your own question. Clearly the interviewer is getting the question from common interpretations of the song. While a citation for these interpretations would be desirable it is not reasonable to expect it to be easy to locate bacause of the nature of the subject - a part of recent popular culture debated by fans verbally and in weblists etc. I think we need to allow a bit of leeway in such cases otherwise the citation-obsessives will delete reference to anything on the grounds that it is not discussed in a peer-reviewed journal. This section is in fact better cited than almost anything else here. Paul B 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Cameras (Cont)

If you read the above discussions I agree with you that the nature of the topic makes finding reputable cites difficult and there should be some leeway. But one should try and meet some basic standard and if it is difficult to bad. If the journalist can find this interpretation so could you. Agree or not message board or instant messaging cites are considered disreputable. You do not need a peer-reviewed journal just a music magazine or zine. But that misses the main point of why Hidden Cameras do not belong. The most reputable source you will find is not as reputable as the person who flatly denied it 69.114.117.103 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (FHU)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/r/o/Talk%7EUrolagnia_cb0c.html"